But these "insane" hardware requirements are very cheap, so they are really not insane, don't you think? I mean,a decent gfx card and 2 gigs of RAM don't cost a fortune like it used to.
Lets see... A good gaming rig costs about $600. For that I can buy both a Wii ($250) and a 360 ($350). Secondly, my Wii and 360 are going to play 95% of all new games without me spending anything extra. The other 5% are usually extra controllers (such as a DDR pad, or a Guitar Hero guitar). And games are about the same amount ($50 for both a console game and a PC game) but for PCs you usually have to add in various MS taxes, not only do you have to buy Vista for Direct X 10, you have to get XP to run any other games at a good speed. PC gaming is still a lot more expensive then console gaming is.
Ummm... Quantity != Quality. Just look at games for the Wii, sure there are some good ones, Super Smash Bros Brawl, and Super Mario Galaxy to name just two, but if you go into any major store you find that about 75% of Wii games are crappy mini-game collections with virtually no purpose that involve shaking around the Wii remote to try to do something.
Even if you look back to the NES where we only had a few major developers there was a lot of quality games made, games that pushed the hardware to the limit. In the SNES/Genesis era things stayed the same. But once we got to the PS1/N64 era, we got flooded with a ton of really crappy games. Think about it, once Disney games were good, at least decent, and worth playing, then midway into the '90s something started to go terribly, terribly wrong. Every movie had some lame video game tie-in, games started to all be the same, originality seemed to be confined to first-party developers. We are still there, you only need to take a look at the Wii.
Sure, free games may solve game "piracy", but it doesn't address what is killing PC gaming. Which are A) Windows, B) Insane hardware requirements and C) Consoles. When all PC games become cross platform (Linux, Windows and Mac), require the average hardware and will run decently on low-end hardware (for example, now it would need to run on 512 MB of RAM and a cheap Intel graphics card), and be better than the games on consoles. Once they solve all those problems PC gaming may be mainstream, but right now they confine themselves to a small niche.
But you still have to download it. Games like Guitar Hero and DDR advertise more because of the fact that they are default and you hear the song over and over again as you play it. Think about it this way, if you asked someone who Dragonforce was before GH:3 they would likely have no clue, but afterwords they started recognizing them due to Through the Fire and the Flames.
I guess Firefox's spellchecker didn't pick up on my misspelling.
And Hillary has a lot to do with Obama losing voters, not only because of this, but also in the general election a lot of democrats who supported Hillary are going to be looking for someone who is a lot like Hillary to vote for.
Of course it will be DRM-d, but think about the type of people who play Madden and other EA games. They don't care about DRM, all they really care about is shiny graphics and the newest players on various football teams.
What ever happened to where game makers would create their own songs and people would buy the soundtrack? I remember back in the SNES/Genesis age, a lot of people would hum various Mario/Sonic tunes, sure they might have been low-quality but they were catchy. At least RPGs still have original soundtracks, I really don't want to play an RPG while hearing *insert song here* when an orchestrated soundtrack would be better. A theme song like on Namco's Tales games would be Ok, but really, do I even want to hear Kid Rock while I am playing a game? And even pay for it? No.
The thing though is. A lot of people are saying "screw this election". Hard-core republicans don't like McCain, all the Hillery fan-girls don't want Obama. And a lot of people are going to blindly vote for a democrat because they hate Bush, and then there are some people who are going to vote for McCain because he isn't black. Obama at least has people excited for him, most republicans are saying "screw this election", I expect an easy victory for Obama, but I don't think he will get re-elected.
I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep
Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.
Sounds like Australians are out of luck. (Unless Fallout 3 turns into an Oblivion clone, in which case nobody cares.)
But on the back of my import Nintendo games there is a big warning saying "For sale, rental and use only in Japan" yet I import games all the time. Then again, I am in the US, and here you can even buy games with no ESRB ratings.
And because Australia would be considered in Oceania, wouldn't that mean that you can import European games even for systems with lockout? Because as far as I know all of them use that, with the slight exception for Nintendo which releases Commodore 64 Virtual Console games that get released in Europe but not Australia.
If teens are growing up without playing these games, why should they be miseed when he is old enough to vote?
Because they are going to find out that the Australian government banned them. So they will play them on emulators, a few hard-core gamers may import them from the EU, US, Japan, and figure out that these games aren't that bad. It is like saying that in schools if you say "don't do drugs" and don't pass out free samples of drugs, you aren't going to ever have a drug problem.
Honestly in all my years of searching Wikipedia, there has been little inaccuracies that I have ever saw. Ignoring a few things that are obvious vandalism (for example, if you can't figure out that an article with "Llama" randomly in it isn't vandalism, then you should go back to first grade). But as for errors, I haven't noticed very many of them, about the only things are some weasel words here and there, but that doesn't change much about the information itself.
But evolution also isn't science. Now, granted you can prove a lot more about evolution then you could ever prove about ID, but saying that one is science and the other is religion isn't right.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research.
For evolution to be science, it needs to A) observe physical evidence, B) The observation of existing phenomena and C) be able to prove though experiments.
For A, evolution might have reason there, we can look at things throughout history and see different things change. For B though, we have yet to see a mutation A) Be beneficial and B) That mutation be passed on, those 2 are required to take place for evolution to be true. And for C, evolution can't be proven as it takes millions of years for something to evolve and back to point B, we haven't even seen beneficial mutations be passed on. So while ID isn't science, evolution isn't really either.
Re:Twitter is up...down...up...down...Whats on TV?
on
Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But if "web 2.0" applications gradually replace traditional applications, that could be a major problem. Imagine having to do your taxes on a "web 2.0" application the night before they were due and having the website down because of heavy traffic.
Not really, think of it this way, if you are going to be making letters that will be reproduced thousands and millions of times, you are going to try to make each one look the best, if you are writing a card, it doesn't really matter as long as it is somewhat readable.
If you are paying for a proxy then I suppose that it would have incentive to keep your info safe. The downside is, it is more likely to be bullied into giving logs, etc. to various government and possibly other businesses.
And why should you care, if your traffic is anonymized and your personal information, when needed, encrypted?
But honestly, in order to get anonymous internet, you either have to A) take a huge speed-hit or B) trust a proxy. Neither of those are usually good options.
Yes, but that all was only needed in the first place because of prior government restrictions. In a truly free market, people wouldn't have to pay taxes, there would be no patents, copyright, etc. In those conditions racism, sexism, and etc. don't fly. We would also have virtually 0 monopolies, and some things would progress at a faster rate.
So... the only factor in determining how "good" a company is is though what percentage of its products are open-source? I hate to shatter your Stallman-derived utopian view of the world, but not every company can make money (which is the purpose of a company, BTW, not to make nifty little code trinkets for you to play with) by having entirely open-source products. If Google open-sourced its advertising-content generators, for example, any two-bit web startup could use them and make just as much money, and Google would be no more. Get real.
Ummm... Lets see here... Red Hat's code is open so anyone can take code and make a distro out of that and charge nothing, oh wait, they have it is called Cent-OS, I don't see Red Hat filing for bankruptcy like a lot of proprietary software vendors have. Nor Canonical which has the open-source Ubuntu. Face it proprietary software is dying .
And on your example, yes. But who are you going to use some company you have never heard of or Google for your advertising?
It is good that Google has started making more things open source, but they still have a long way to go. Right now they are comparable to Apple, they like open source, make some open source products, but aren't like Red Hat and make everything open source, but I guess we should be glad they aren't like Microsoft where nothing is open source.
But how many companies really need sysadmins that are system-level developers? Now, granted, it is good to have a sysadmin who can write programs in binary and such, but most don't need that. They just need someone who knows how to put the HTML on the servers and make it work. They need someone who can bail out the boss who managed to forget his password, they need someone who can figure out if it is your monitor that is broken or your graphics card. But for most small-ish businesses (less then 100 employees), they just need/want someone who can set up a server and fix it when it breaks. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is one thing I absolutely hate. Local news sites. Thankfully one keeps the page down to simple HTML with a bit of JavaScript but the rest are Flash-laded behemoths (no I do not want to watch a live weather broadcast on your front page!) Thankfully, I can rely on/. for most of my news and rely on TV broadcasts for the rest of it.
Exactly, or ROMs for old systems that the companies have either gone broke or they aren't making any money off of them. The difference though is, it is becoming increasingly not, "is this legal" but rather "does anyone care?".
Slashdot Mirror
But these "insane" hardware requirements are very cheap, so they are really not insane, don't you think? I mean,a decent gfx card and 2 gigs of RAM don't cost a fortune like it used to.
Lets see... A good gaming rig costs about $600. For that I can buy both a Wii ($250) and a 360 ($350). Secondly, my Wii and 360 are going to play 95% of all new games without me spending anything extra. The other 5% are usually extra controllers (such as a DDR pad, or a Guitar Hero guitar). And games are about the same amount ($50 for both a console game and a PC game) but for PCs you usually have to add in various MS taxes, not only do you have to buy Vista for Direct X 10, you have to get XP to run any other games at a good speed. PC gaming is still a lot more expensive then console gaming is.
Ummm... Quantity != Quality. Just look at games for the Wii, sure there are some good ones, Super Smash Bros Brawl, and Super Mario Galaxy to name just two, but if you go into any major store you find that about 75% of Wii games are crappy mini-game collections with virtually no purpose that involve shaking around the Wii remote to try to do something.
Even if you look back to the NES where we only had a few major developers there was a lot of quality games made, games that pushed the hardware to the limit. In the SNES/Genesis era things stayed the same. But once we got to the PS1/N64 era, we got flooded with a ton of really crappy games. Think about it, once Disney games were good, at least decent, and worth playing, then midway into the '90s something started to go terribly, terribly wrong. Every movie had some lame video game tie-in, games started to all be the same, originality seemed to be confined to first-party developers. We are still there, you only need to take a look at the Wii.
Sure, free games may solve game "piracy", but it doesn't address what is killing PC gaming. Which are A) Windows, B) Insane hardware requirements and C) Consoles. When all PC games become cross platform (Linux, Windows and Mac), require the average hardware and will run decently on low-end hardware (for example, now it would need to run on 512 MB of RAM and a cheap Intel graphics card), and be better than the games on consoles. Once they solve all those problems PC gaming may be mainstream, but right now they confine themselves to a small niche.
Yes but a few of the games that are banned or may be banned in the future are console-only games, meaning you need an emulator to play them.
But you still have to download it. Games like Guitar Hero and DDR advertise more because of the fact that they are default and you hear the song over and over again as you play it. Think about it this way, if you asked someone who Dragonforce was before GH:3 they would likely have no clue, but afterwords they started recognizing them due to Through the Fire and the Flames.
I guess Firefox's spellchecker didn't pick up on my misspelling.
And Hillary has a lot to do with Obama losing voters, not only because of this, but also in the general election a lot of democrats who supported Hillary are going to be looking for someone who is a lot like Hillary to vote for.
Of course it will be DRM-d, but think about the type of people who play Madden and other EA games. They don't care about DRM, all they really care about is shiny graphics and the newest players on various football teams.
What ever happened to where game makers would create their own songs and people would buy the soundtrack? I remember back in the SNES/Genesis age, a lot of people would hum various Mario/Sonic tunes, sure they might have been low-quality but they were catchy. At least RPGs still have original soundtracks, I really don't want to play an RPG while hearing *insert song here* when an orchestrated soundtrack would be better. A theme song like on Namco's Tales games would be Ok, but really, do I even want to hear Kid Rock while I am playing a game? And even pay for it? No.
The thing though is. A lot of people are saying "screw this election". Hard-core republicans don't like McCain, all the Hillery fan-girls don't want Obama. And a lot of people are going to blindly vote for a democrat because they hate Bush, and then there are some people who are going to vote for McCain because he isn't black. Obama at least has people excited for him, most republicans are saying "screw this election", I expect an easy victory for Obama, but I don't think he will get re-elected.
I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep
Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.
Sounds like Australians are out of luck. (Unless Fallout 3 turns into an Oblivion clone, in which case nobody cares.)
But on the back of my import Nintendo games there is a big warning saying "For sale, rental and use only in Japan" yet I import games all the time. Then again, I am in the US, and here you can even buy games with no ESRB ratings.
The main regions are: * Asia (NTSC-J) * North America (NTSC U/C) * Europe and Oceania (PAL, PAL/E) * China (NTSC-C)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_lockout#Video_games
And because Australia would be considered in Oceania, wouldn't that mean that you can import European games even for systems with lockout? Because as far as I know all of them use that, with the slight exception for Nintendo which releases Commodore 64 Virtual Console games that get released in Europe but not Australia.
If teens are growing up without playing these games, why should they be miseed when he is old enough to vote?
Because they are going to find out that the Australian government banned them. So they will play them on emulators, a few hard-core gamers may import them from the EU, US, Japan, and figure out that these games aren't that bad. It is like saying that in schools if you say "don't do drugs" and don't pass out free samples of drugs, you aren't going to ever have a drug problem.
Honestly in all my years of searching Wikipedia, there has been little inaccuracies that I have ever saw. Ignoring a few things that are obvious vandalism (for example, if you can't figure out that an article with "Llama" randomly in it isn't vandalism, then you should go back to first grade). But as for errors, I haven't noticed very many of them, about the only things are some weasel words here and there, but that doesn't change much about the information itself.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research.
Wikipedia says that about science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
For evolution to be science, it needs to A) observe physical evidence, B) The observation of existing phenomena and C) be able to prove though experiments.
For A, evolution might have reason there, we can look at things throughout history and see different things change. For B though, we have yet to see a mutation A) Be beneficial and B) That mutation be passed on, those 2 are required to take place for evolution to be true. And for C, evolution can't be proven as it takes millions of years for something to evolve and back to point B, we haven't even seen beneficial mutations be passed on. So while ID isn't science, evolution isn't really either.
But if "web 2.0" applications gradually replace traditional applications, that could be a major problem. Imagine having to do your taxes on a "web 2.0" application the night before they were due and having the website down because of heavy traffic.
Not really, think of it this way, if you are going to be making letters that will be reproduced thousands and millions of times, you are going to try to make each one look the best, if you are writing a card, it doesn't really matter as long as it is somewhat readable.
If you are paying for a proxy then I suppose that it would have incentive to keep your info safe. The downside is, it is more likely to be bullied into giving logs, etc. to various government and possibly other businesses.
And why should you care, if your traffic is anonymized and your personal information, when needed, encrypted?
But honestly, in order to get anonymous internet, you either have to A) take a huge speed-hit or B) trust a proxy. Neither of those are usually good options.
Yes, but that all was only needed in the first place because of prior government restrictions. In a truly free market, people wouldn't have to pay taxes, there would be no patents, copyright, etc. In those conditions racism, sexism, and etc. don't fly. We would also have virtually 0 monopolies, and some things would progress at a faster rate.
So... the only factor in determining how "good" a company is is though what percentage of its products are open-source? I hate to shatter your Stallman-derived utopian view of the world, but not every company can make money (which is the purpose of a company, BTW, not to make nifty little code trinkets for you to play with) by having entirely open-source products. If Google open-sourced its advertising-content generators, for example, any two-bit web startup could use them and make just as much money, and Google would be no more. Get real.
Ummm... Lets see here... Red Hat's code is open so anyone can take code and make a distro out of that and charge nothing, oh wait, they have it is called Cent-OS, I don't see Red Hat filing for bankruptcy like a lot of proprietary software vendors have. Nor Canonical which has the open-source Ubuntu. Face it proprietary software is dying .
And on your example, yes. But who are you going to use some company you have never heard of or Google for your advertising?
It is good that Google has started making more things open source, but they still have a long way to go. Right now they are comparable to Apple, they like open source, make some open source products, but aren't like Red Hat and make everything open source, but I guess we should be glad they aren't like Microsoft where nothing is open source.
But how many companies really need sysadmins that are system-level developers? Now, granted, it is good to have a sysadmin who can write programs in binary and such, but most don't need that. They just need someone who knows how to put the HTML on the servers and make it work. They need someone who can bail out the boss who managed to forget his password, they need someone who can figure out if it is your monitor that is broken or your graphics card. But for most small-ish businesses (less then 100 employees), they just need/want someone who can set up a server and fix it when it breaks. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is one thing I absolutely hate. Local news sites. Thankfully one keeps the page down to simple HTML with a bit of JavaScript but the rest are Flash-laded behemoths (no I do not want to watch a live weather broadcast on your front page!) Thankfully, I can rely on /. for most of my news and rely on TV broadcasts for the rest of it.
Exactly, or ROMs for old systems that the companies have either gone broke or they aren't making any money off of them. The difference though is, it is becoming increasingly not, "is this legal" but rather "does anyone care?".